Making Abortion Obsolete

Adopted child, from the child's side of perspective, IS ANOTHER ISSUE. Can he handle the emotional, moral and ethical issues when he comes of age
during his formative years which set the course of his life? Already, natural born children faces the real pyschological trauma of self identity known
as ' teenage angst'.

Will it be far worse if he knows he was just a test tube baby to serve the selfish desires of a married couple, or worse, a single parent, whom denied
themselves the responsibilities of the reproduction act to bear and grow that life from conception?

I think all parents that plan families do so out of selfishness. But I do see issues that might arise latter in the child's life pertaining to his
origin. Would he be treated differently, or as a second class citizen, considered not quite human? Is there a new kind of discrimination and bigotry
on the horizon?

If the mother had not known the responsibilities of caring for a real baby forming within her, the tender care and sacrifices she made for 9 months,
will she love the test tube baby as much as a real one within her, or will she just simply 'dial a baby' for another if the present test tube baby
prove a handful?

Carrying and giving birth are life altering moments. I wouldn't want to underestimate how it also effects the babies ability to cope in the future,
not having shared emotional and passionate experiences with it's mother. There's no telling how it would effect bonding.

I suppose that some would be parents would want to visit the growing fetus, reading and talking to it. Maybe there will be some way to stroke it,
similarly to the way a mother strokes her belly. Maybe these "womb pods" could be temporarily mobile, so that the parents could walk and sway with
the fetus. All ideas to help with the physical bonding process, making it more organic.

New reproductive technologies may also redefine the politics surrounding reproduction, including the issue of abortion. I welcome the prospect. It
is difficult to believe that science could do a worse job with the issue than courts and fanatic rhetoric. At the very least, science may offer new
methods of ending a pregnancy without destroying an embryo or fetus.

Well its from my experience(whole 26 yrs of it lol). It seems Men as seen as much durable than females. Weather it be emotional(rape, harassment etc)
or physically discriminated (men/female Olympics, games. sports). I do believe men are physically stronger and can withstand higher physical
stress.

It could also due to how my family worked....my sister can't stay out too late etc... compared to me or my brother... or how my parents tell her not
to hang around alone with many guys etc... a men would not have that trouble, you would never see a mom say "don't you hang around with bunch of
women alone". i guess its social impaction....

I'm not sure the families that can afford that technology will be interested in receiving a baby that way though. Some surely will, but probably not
enough. Just like not enough families are adopting, instead they are opting for in-vitro and fertility drugs. I suspect when this technology becomes
mainstream it will be mothers and fathers using their own DNA to construct a baby of their own, rather than taking one that nobody wants.

I think that there will always some people to take in the less fortunate and unwanted children.

Churches are rich. Church charities could conceivably finance a facility for the purpose of "saving" children from abortion, and the adoptive parents
could pay a fee for the service. It might not be more expensive than the adoption process is now, and probably a lot less corrupt.

I'd love to hear from some of our ATS Catholics on this possibility and how they think their church might react to such a proposition for saving the
unborn from abortion.

I also fail to see where this has anything to do with abortion. It has only to do with growing a baby outside of the human womb. Maybe those not
able to or not wanting to carry a baby within their womb will be able to utilize it. Unless TPTB are going to force sterilization on the masses, and
this is the ONLY way to 'have' a baby, only the wealthy will use this avenue. Or maybe TPTB will use it to raise their mass of brain washed super
soldiers.....

I love the idea but am also terrified of it. It would be amazing to grow babies outside the womb for some people I know...they have trouble being
pregnant and this would give them a chance to be mothers.
But used irresponsibly it is a concern....how many would be grown? What would happen to spare ones? Would they try and clone them?
I read that they will be able to grow cells from the placenta to replace cells lost through disease... A placenta bank would be a good idea...growing
them...

She concluded, "We must start discussing this topic now while we have still enough time to decide what we may want, and why."

Abortion activists, both pro-choice and pro-life, should heed Simonstein's warning. Science has sped past the current state of debate, and those
stuck behind in the rut of discussing Roe v. Wade may find themselves obsolete. Whether or not ectogenesis is ever able to sustain a nine-month human
pregnancy, one thing is clear: key issues like viability are being redefined by science. The abortion debate must move into the 21st century, where it
may be possible for many pro-choice and pro-life advocates to find common ground.

Science will not make the abortion debate go away. The conflict is too deep and involves such fundamental questions of ethics and rights as, "What is
a human life?" "Can two 'human beings' – a fetus and the pregnant woman – claim control over the same body?" and "When does an individual
with rights come into existence?" These questions are beyond the scope of science.

Nevertheless, technology can impact the debate in at least two ways. First, it can explore ways to end a pregnancy without destroying the fetus, which
may then be sustained; if such procedures became accessible and inexpensive (or financed by adoptive 'parents'), then abortion rates would likely
decline...and sharply

Second, it may offer "an out" for activists on both sides who sincerely wish to resolve the debate and not merely scream at each other at ever
increasing shrillness.

Many pro-choice women, like me, have been deeply disturbed by ultrasound scan photos that show fetuses, at earlier than once thought periods of
gestation, sucking their thumbs, appearing to smile and otherwise resembling a full-term baby. Many of us would welcome alternate procedures and forms
of ectogenesis as long as they remained choices. And as long as both parental rights and parental responsibilities could be relinquished.

For their part, pro-life advocates who are sincerely bothered by the totalitarian implications of monitoring pregnant women and demolishing
doctor-client privilege might well jump at a technological solution.

So we will have the ability to transfer a fetus to an artificial womb to save a child from abortion!

There are, of course other beneficial aspects to this technology too, such as neo-natal preemies needing a little more womb time, may be able to stay
"within" and let those lungs develop, like they're supposed to.

I hear you! The thing is, this technology is at door step NOW! It's good to educate ourselves and discuss what we as a society deem medically
ethical. I do believe human cloning is still illegal, although it's successfully being done in animals.

Can we allow a grieving couple to clone the son they just lost?

We have a whole new set of parameters that are going to corner us, if we don't educate ourselves and speak up now!

What first comes to mind is Leuren Moret's interviews on eugenics. And some philosophical stuff I heard once on how humanity is seemingly trying to
dissolve its need for a body. Maybe we're all trying to commit suicide on some level.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Would be nice to have such options. I look forward to progression towards this.
Seems like a win across the board, from a mother able to keep her form and whatnot (many women do worry very much about that and decide to forego
motherhood simply for that). Also, removal of the whole debate..

.

If women forgo having children because of their figure, they were not emotionally mature to have a kid to begin with. That is something that you
accept as a mother. Hell my kid wrecked my body, and I wouldn't change it for one second.

Bioethicists worry that another subset of women will employ fake wombs for convenience, to avoid stretch marks and weight gain or to prolong
Hollywood careers. Some radical feminists see the man-made uteruses as a way not just to free women from pregnancy but to rid the human race of
females completely. If sufficient ova were banked, they say,

men could have an artificial womb surgically implanted and bear children themselves.

LADIES HERE IT IS! This is every ones dream come true! How many of your husbands told you sympathetically, that if they could, they would be
pregnant instead! Here's our chance to call their bluff!

Carrying and giving birth are life altering moments. I wouldn't want to underestimate how it also effects the babies ability to cope in the future,
not having shared emotional and passionate experiences with it's mother. There's no telling how it would effect bonding.

But - would a fetus be physically healthier if in its early stages - - when it is first forming - - not be subjected to possible negatives from the
host physical body which is susceptible to many harmful exposures - foods - illness etc.

What if the fetus is first grown in an artificial womb - - - free of negatives that would harm its development - - - then later placed into the
mother's womb?

This has been along time coming. The main reason we as humans cannot further increase our cranial capacity and thus our intelligent is due to
childbirth. A womans hips are wide for a reason, so her womb and vaginal canal can support the stretching required to bare live young into the world.
As we evolved, essentially what happened is we started having our children in a 'premature' state.
Our cranial sizes grow massively from the day of birth and the coming years. If our babies were not being born premature, their heads would be
too large to come through the birth canal and thus would die and kill the mother. Child birth, up until 1900's was the most common way for a women to
die. Now, if we take that risk away, we allow gestation period of longer time until they are no longer being born premature, then cranial size should
continue to grow. These out of body 'wombs' are actually quit a smart idea for the continuation of our species. As well, mix these with the coming
of age of gene therapy....man our species will change forever. May be good, may be bad, but who cares, progress is good.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.